Hillary, The Weather is Just Fine
By Larry JohnsoncloseAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on April 16, 2008 at 9:57 PM in Current Affairs
Nice try Barack, but your lame effort to claim that Hillary has the same kind of Weather Underground problem that you do is nonsense. Let’s put the facts side by side:
Barack Obama:
A thirteen year relationship with William Ayers, an unrepentant member of the Weather Underground. Ayers did not do jail time because the FBI botched the evidence. Ayers stated on 9-11 that he regretted not planting more bombs. And what did Barack do? Barack continued to appear in public with Ayers. Barack accepted campaign cash from Ayers. Barack gave money, with help from Ayers, to a group that backs Palestinian’s tied to the PLO. Barack was doing this as recently as 2002.
Hillary Clinton:
No relationship with unrepentant members of the Weather Underground. Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, pardoned two members of the Weather Underground who had been convicted and served significant time in prison. One of these was Susan Rosenberg. Hillary was not consulted and did not lobby on behalf of Rosenberg and her cohort. Hillary has not solicited or taken campaign funds from the Weather Underground. Hillary does not sit on any board with any member of the Weather Underground.
Got it?
Welcome to the bizarro world of Barack Obama. He is personal friends with an unrepentant terrorist and takes his campaign donations and claims this is the same as Hillary being married to the President who pardoned two members of the Weather Underground who had served six years in prison. And Rosenberg actually apologized for her crime.
I disagree with Bill Clinton’s decision. I think he was wrong. But I blame him, not Hillary. Hillary did not put him up to it and Hillary did not benefit from the decision. So what is Senator Obama’s point? Hillary is not friends with an unrepentant terrorist. Barack is. Explain that one to us Mr. Obama.


















Hey, I have a question:
I just followed live-blogging, but I read that Obama compared Ayers to Coburn. Is that correct??
Something like he is friends with both, even though he has his disagreements. Could it be a breach of Senate decorum to compare another member to a terrorist-murderer??? LOL.
That is almost bizarre. (I only say almost because, one night a few years ago, I watched Tom Coburn in a senate election debate, and he terrified me.)
When the transcript is up, we’ll have to grab that, however.
Great.. the Republicans need to be reminded to be outraged now, in case they “forget” until after Obama is the nominee.. ahem:)
Yes he did. Amazing how he works his foot and mouth, isn’t it?
yet another gaffe which would be fatal for most candidates.
Amen Larry! How dare he try to slap her with something she didn’t do. I mean, the absurdity of saying, “your husband, Bill Clinton…” or however it was phrased. Absolutely absurd!!!!
Thanks Larry. Someone needed to point out that the people Bill Clinton pardoned actually went to jail. And at least one of them apologized for her crimes. No one could have made these points with more credibility. Obama is toast, only he just doesn’t quite know it quite yet.
I read that they were commuted, not pardoned.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline135239_000.htm
Right on, Larry! I told my brother the same thing after the debate.
It was a cute attempt by Obama to achieve some Weather Underground ‘equivalence,’ but that isn’t happening. There is no comparison.
Barack has a lot of radical to him, as most who have researched his background can attest to. That was exposed tonight, and rightfully so.
My biggest winner for the night? ABC:
http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=457#457
MSNBC & CNN: You better take notes on how actual debate coverage and moderation is conducted. You look like fools after tonight.
Hey, I watched your videos last night and thought they were great! Nice to run into you here.
There are virtually no diaries by Hillary supporters at MyDD. Someone should post one following up on the Ayers topic. I know they are mostly goons but this information needs to be read by all, since it seems that Obama thinks he can just pass the buck.
They’ve purged a good number of the Hillary supporters. I was red-bannered (warned) for making a pretty innocuous statement. They don’t want us there anymore.
I never bothered to go there much to begin with. I instinctively knew it was a closet Obama place.
At least Daily Kos is what it is. They don’t pretend.
Frankly, I think we should do the same to them. They deliberately come here to derail us after they drove us off their boards. Every time one of them shows up, I want to run out and tell five more people what a jerk Obama is–except in my circle, he’s not well liked to begin with. Bullshit doesn’t go over well among adults. I also have some interesting Nicey-Nicey Plan links where they think they are going to come here and snowball us into helping that lying piece of crap after he steals the nomination. I don’t know about the rest of you, but if that happens, these people are delusional if they think I am going to forget, much less forgive. I will just work much harder against him.
I got kicked out of there so I can’t post anymore. Someone else is going to have to do that.
I don’t go there anymore, the action is here, and a few other blogs.
If they’re not posting anything interesting, even if it doesn’t involve Clinton/Obama, why bother?
That was such a cheap shot he took. I was hoping Hillary would remind him who is actually running for President-NOT Bill Clinton. He always has to bring up things Bill did as if Bill and Hill are the same person. Pretty damn bizarre if you ask me.
Do you think Hillary knew about those 2 Underground members? It didn’t look like she was prepared for that attack, but maybe she was and decided it would go unanswered? I don’t know. I was a little surprised that she let it slide.
Hillary was awesome tonight!
funny how he treats bill and hill as one when it’s something negative, but then treats her as “just a first lady” when it comes to crediting her with actually doing anything.
of course, he doesn’t even credit bill with actually doing anything. apparently, he thinks the good years were reagan’s doing. somehow i think mccain can make use of that attitude.
Obama is a total maroon.
There is no doubt he will never be elected.
I thought given the parameters she did very well describing her approach to mid-east politics and Iran. Sounded very presidential.
Oh yeah!
What else was he going to do? I mean he was not having a good night.
Thanks for the straight talk Larry. I was thinking the same thing as I watched. There was no comparison, same thing with the tea and cookies comment. I know when Hillary said it in ‘92 she was slammed by the media for that comment, but I knew what she meant. She wasn’t knocking stay-at-home moms or housewives or anyone, she was speaking about herself and how she wanted to use her education and skills to give back. That is what she has done her entire life. BO was too young to remember that line from the first campaign, it was fed to him by Axlerove, and I thought it was a cheap shot.
Thought cheap shots were not part of Obama’s campaign, shouldn’t Obama resign?
Ayers, didn’t he hold Obama’s first meet the candidate dinner?
Are you serious?
serious about what?
Ayers holding BO’s first meet the candidate dinner.
yup, read it in the chicago trib or sun, forgot which
It was his kick off event. Yep! Saint SnObama sure knows how to pick his friends.
That lying sack of shit.
Here is Barack Obama:
I didn’t actually hear Rev Wright say “God Damn America” because I wasn’t in the pews!
That wasn’t my handwriting on that questionnaire with my name on it.
I didn’t personally question Hillary’s honesty, I let my campaign do it for me!
LoL. The Obamabots finally know a tiny bit how we feel when MSNBC attacks Hillary. One of my Obamabot friends said that ABC owes the people of PA an apology for attacking Obama on issues that shouldn’t matter in this election: Wright, wearing a flagpin, and bitter-gate. Ummm…yes, learning about who a candidate really is and what he stands for is something PA voters deserve to know. Obama is finally being vetted and it’s not a pretty sight.
they forgot to mention Obama increasing payroll taxes of middle income earners and doubling capital gains taxes, sorry Larry, you will lose millions if Obama gets in…….lol
but we won’t have any capital gains if obama gets in, so it won’t matter. laughing, but not in a good way.
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
Hoping for some more of this good coverage, and sneek over to DK and watch the immates foam at the mouth again.
My, I swear they must like McInsane, as two of a feather flock together!
Was that his daughter they showed in the crowd not paying attention while he was speaking playing with her necklace?
Larry,
Obama did land a bombshell about Bill’s pardons. It’s also a problematic one in the GE. Partisans will overlook it, but not the GOP hell bent on keeping 30 years of work from failing.
What’s really sad is, Obama could ruin his and Hillary’s chances. Why on Earth did he mention the pardons (because most of the voters don’t research candidates, and wouldn’t have known this until now — I sure didn’t), I don’t know, but giving ammo to the enemy in a time of war to finish off an ally is treason.
This is Republican red meat. This is a 24oz Porterhouse steak with all the trimmings. Raise the terrorism flag, especially 60’s liberal and radical home grown variety, and you can bet your house the Republicans will rally around it like it was Gettysburg.
All because Obama needed to score.
He scored all right, and may have handed McInsane the presidency on a DNC silver platter.
Michigan and Florida won’t be represented with millions of voters with no say. No Dem leadership, but a pure Darwin bloodbath that even the GOP won’t engage in. Partisans so blinded by the reflection in their own mirror. Kids too stupid to understand politics or even history.
A freaking train wreck awaiting a cliff.
Enjoy the weather folks, but come November the sky won’t be blue or the sun shining.
According to the above link, Clinton commuted the sentences but didn’t pardon them.
Doesn’t matter. They were terrorists. Freaking terrorists that wanted to kill service people like al Qaeta, by blowing them up.
Pardoning, excusing, commuting or giving such creepzoids a professorship all associated with Dems plays right into the fears of Republicans. It’s the rally call the Dems didn’t need. The only thing missing out of the GOP call-for-action script is an abortion (and if we learn any of those women had one…this is worse than a Hollyweird movie, I simply can’t believe candidates are THIS STUPID!!!!).
And Bush commuted Scooter’s sentence, and Scooter was a party to protecting the big whale, and his crew of whalettes, who outed a spy, during a time of war, which is also a terrorist act.
So, you know, if I were a republican troll, I’d be careful with that, given the parameters WILL change when Bush and Cheney are out.
But republican trolls, like all good modern day conservatives, are adverse to change.
:blink:
Is the disconnection from reality this distinct in partisanship now? To trivialize terrorism for political points?
If this is the core Democrat thinking, it explains why for 50+ years, there’s only been 5 Democrat presidents.
Count: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Bill Clinton.
Four out of five didn’t even have a mandate. Three left office in disgrace (their own party turned on them).
Do you want more of the same? Keep up the cheap partisan talking points, and that dream will come true — again, and again, and again — as voters tune out and turn off the political process as it’s a classic definition of INSANITY (repeating the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result).
This wasn’t about Scooter. Or Bush. It’s about the Weather Underground and how it haunts another generation of politicos, because the new generation never learned from the old, to NOT repeat history.
If the nod goes to Hillary it will be about the ECONOMY….The GOP has nothing to compete on that…..All HRC has to do is ask that famous question….Are you better off now that you were 8 yrs, ago….If the nod goes to OBAMESSIAH……The GOP will simply chant RADICAL…RADICAL…RADICAL…. right into the White House and probably a republican majority in congress.
Daily Kos has some diary by a guy who says he lives in the same neighborhood as Obama and who says everyone there has to be friends. As in, of course Obama is friends with Ayers.
and this joker claims that everyone is getting the story from Hannity. apparently he does not read Chicago papers or interact in Chicago cause Ayers and Dohrn are well known and well avoided.
Do they have to live in the area?
It’s amazing the lengths Obamatons will go to justifying everything Obama does!
the more i get info. about obama’s underground friends and activities, the more i get seriously concern . we need to defeat this man in the primary. you don’t want a man like that to be our president.
The more I see of Obama’s friends, the more I see of Cheney’s friends, too, money and all that.
It’s all graft, though I think in Obama’s case, unfortunately, it’s also ideology.
But really, what’s the difference between Obama’s acts, and Cheney’s, of outing Plame, (which may have resulted in the murders of Plame’s informants)?
Just as a theoretical.
The Rolling Stone article mentioned in tonight’s debate.
God is undoubtedly sick of Wright’s shit.
He’s lucky they did’t have time to get into Rashid Khalidi and Zbigniew Brezinski. Or his election call center in Gaza City.
[...] the trivia that Gibson and Stephanopoulos focused on, there was at least one gem in the dungheap: The Ayers connection is a valid issue. It begs the question: Why is Barack Obama attracted to radical black [...]
Obama’s arrogance:
The funny part about that quote of Obama’s, is in the very next sentence he denies he’s being condescending to Hillary.
Oh! I finally get it. Though I think many of us instinctively perceive.
Barak orbits the planet Obama!
It is not mere arrogance. I bet he would meet the DSM criteria for NPD. Or is that Michelle?
I feel a little shame. I have not felt this antipathy for two people as much as this since .. since … GW? No, I thought him a dangerous bafoon. I know…
Hey Aaaaaaaaaaabooooooooooottttt …
God I hated the Abbott & Costello cartoons. Give me Mr. Magoo!
Unortunately….his laser beam of healing has not penetrated my TYPICAL WHITE BITTER CYNICAL BANJO PLAYIN WORKING CLASS SCEPTICISM….LOL
It was a set up question….But I will sy that HRC saying she would work toward party unity was pretty classy….OBAMESSIAH did’nt say the same thing….I guess he was scared Michelle would spank him..
keep seeing the msm sites headlines - clinton says obama can defeat mccain - or some variation on that theme. seems that’s all they want people to think about the debate.
seems like it might’ve been just a setup to get her to say what she had no choice but to say. if she goes back on it later, she’s a liar. otherwise, he’s electable….yeah right.
just wondering….
And we can thank Bill Richardson for giving them the setup question. Bastard. I am so hoping Hillary wins this election. I want to see Bill Richardson’s reaction when she does. I also want to see him SUFFER the demise of his political career at HER hand. I’m not at all revengeful though.;)
He is such a JERK.
This is my first and last visit to this blog. I immediately noticed how you blatantly misquoted Ayers to throw salt on a wound and do as ABC did - make a mockery of the debate process. Thanks for nothing.
When asked about setting bombs and protesting the Vietnam War:
“I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”
:::hic:::: oh gosh ::::::: I laughed so hard at the Obamabot I got the hiccups!
Poor wittle Obamawama … Mommy was mean and the bad moderators asked hard questions.
Obama has cake stuck to his shoes baby. Bring out the CSI kit ’cause I think Charley pulled the cake right out from under him.
CNN who? MSNBC what? Keith Whatshisname?
Take this with you on your way out Andrew
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Let me pull the quote from there for you
”I don’t regret setting bombs,” Bill Ayers said. ”I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Obama: ‘I’m a Pretty Darned Good Politician’
Barack Obama may have added more fuel to the fire for those who want to paint him as arrogant or elitist, praising himself Wednesday as “a pretty darn good politician.”
In a speech to Jewish community leaders in Philadelphia, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether the recent controversy over Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s retiring pastor, could lead to him being attacked by Republicans in the fall and create the possibility of turning his candidacy into one akin to failed candidates George McGovern and Michael Dukakis.
At the end of a long response, Obama said: “Let me make one last point about the comparison to McGovern and Dukakis, both excellent men, but I’m a pretty darn good politician. And I can give a pretty good speech and I can connect and inspire the American people in ways that I think will become apparent. I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t pretty good at mixing it up. And so much of the attack machine that’s been built up is part of the old politics.”
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/obama-i-am-pretty-darned-good-politician/
Can we have a blog on this please?
I already started one on this. I didn’t post it because of the debate.
ABC: Obama Tantrum: His camp claims several “prominent” PA people are going to switch sides from Clinton to Obama because last night was “too negative”. They DARED to question the Baby Jesus of Narcisscism. Somebody must pay for that. You can’t go screwing with the Messiah. I mean where do they get off wanting answers? This man needs a psychological profile stat. He looked like his head was going to blow off last night. I bet he threw himself on the floor and screamed in the candy aisle last night when that debate was over.
If they switch it has more to do with the BROWNSHIRTS surrounding their houses.
Somewhat off topic - interesting op-ed on BO’s bitter comments
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17bartels.html
I was struck by how easy Hillary was toward him. She’s a good Democrat period. Obama praising George Sr. and Reagan while tearing down Bill Clinton again. Glad Hillary got to mention the prosperity that the Clinton Administration left the country in. Not ever mentioned as history is re-written by Obama and the Republicans. “Friends with Tom Coburn?” Who brags about that? We at home want to know what else Wright said that got him dis-invited to Obama’s campaign kick-off. Rezko and Auchi not mentioned, I imagine it should make the papers as the trial continues though. Penn, then on from there. Need to keep donating to Clinton so she can fight on til August. Florida and Michigan, without us, Obama simply cannot win. He’d do even worse now if we got to vote again. He brought up the violence in Chicago that has the kids being gunned down on their way to school. More of that please. Seems maybe its Chicago thats bitter, clinging to guns and Wright’s church. What exactly did Obama do as an organizer? Doesn’t seem like he helped those people very much, rather, he just helped himself to their money.
so wait…Obama get flak for a relationship with a pastor who SAID some dumb things…and Hillary will fly through when her own husband pardoned terrorists who DID actual bombings…hmm…something there doesnt fly with me…
I know this is almost IMPOSSIBLE for Obamaroids, but FACTS really ARE important:
FACT: BILL CLINTON IS NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
FACT: HILLARY CLINTON IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.
FACT: MR. HOPE RUNS WITH UNSAVORY CHARACTERS.
You are not even old enough to vote. ( sigh )
poker and rule and variation
Consolidate seven card stud en linea holdem money play poker texas casino game online roulette poker pc gratuites video poker strategy
laser for paint guns
How does the rss feed work so I can get updated on your blog?
tavoli da gioco poker
Questo world cup of poker casino bonus 10 besten casino online giochi seven card stud inlinea download video poker
[...] Johnson, Hillary, The Weather is Just Fine, NoQuarterUSA, April 16, [...]